4.4 Review

Psychosocial factors and the pain experience of osteoarthritis patients: new findings and new directions

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 501-506

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e32832ed704

关键词

osteoarthritis; pain; psychosocial

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P01 AR50245, R01 AR049059, R01 AR054626, R34AR056727]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR054626, P01AR050245, R01AR049059, R34AR056727] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review The present paper reviews recent psychosocial research in the area of osteoarthritis pain. First, the review highlights studies of psychosocial factors that can influence osteoarthritis pain. Next, research testing the efficacy of psychosocial treatments for osteoarthritis pain is summarized. Recent findings Recent studies suggest that asking osteoarthritis patients to recall pain experiences may not be as accurate as having them keep daily pain records. New studies also support the notion that fatigue and increased weight are linked to higher osteoarthritis pain. Osteoarthritis patients who report higher levels of depression are more prone to report increased osteoarthritis pain. New studies also indicate that social factors such as ethnic background, ability to communicate pain to others, and participation in social activities can influence osteoarthritis pain and disability. Cognitions about pain (i.e. pain catastrophizing, acceptance, self-efficacy for pain) also have been found to relate to pain in patients with osteoarthritis. Recent, randomized controlled studies suggest that psychosocial interventions (i.e. self-management programs, exercise) can decrease osteoarthritis pain and disability. Summary Several psychosocial variables have been suggested as influencing osteoarthritis pain and disability. There is evidence that psychosocial interventions may decrease osteoarthritis pain and disability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据